City's actions do not spell a conflict

Published: Friday, January 17, 2014 at 4:30 a.m.

Last Modified: Thursday, January 16, 2014 at 5:04 p.m.

Elected officials must do all they can to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interests. Yet even applying these strict criteria, Hendersonville City Council acted correctly in voting last week to refund a water fee paid by a recently elected council member.

In a 3-1 vote with Councilman Jerry Smith opposing, council agreed Jan. 9 to refund Millerís Laundry and Cleaners $10,875 in impact fees the businessí owner, Councilman Jeff Miller, paid to relocate part of his business in 2011.

Miller is open about the fact that his dispute with the city over the fees, known as system development charges, prompted him to run for council. His battle concerning these charges, which are imposed on new homes and businesses that impact the cityís water and sewer system, started about eight years ago.

At that time, Miller relocated a business in the Laurel Park Shopping Center to U.S. 64, incurring $12,000 in water fees, most of that attributed to system development charges. Miller contends he should not have had to pay the fees because he was relocating a business rather than opening a new one.

Five years later, Miller transferred his long-running laundry service for summer camps from Millerís Laundry on King Street to 620 Brevard Road. Moving the service allowed him to upgrade equipment, cutting his companyís water use at both locations. Yet he was charged another $12,000 in September 2011, most of it attributed to the system development charge.

Miller was so aggravated by the total of $24,000 in water charges that he considered filing a lawsuit against the city. Instead, he filed a formal complaint with then-City Manager Bo Ferguson.

After taking the matter before council, Ferguson sent Miller an email advising him to wait about two years before bringing his request for a refund before the board. The reason given was to allow the city time to compare the difference in the laundryís past and current water use.

Council approved a new rate formula in 2012 that caused the system development charge to spike for commercial water users. Miller said his business would have paid $25,000 rather than $12,000 under that system. But in October, council revised the policy to lessen the impact on businesses. Miller, however, was so frustrated that he made his battle the centerpiece of his winning bid for a seat on council in November.

Since city officials told Miller to wait two years before appealing the fee assessed on his business, it is not his fault that the decision came after he was elected to council.

Council also voted to waive the system development charge for Boyd Chevrolet in November after the company cut its water use by more than half at its new location, and council has previously refunded charges to a veterinary clinic.

There is no reason to believe council would have acted differently had Miller been anyone else but an elected council member. Because of this, and the fact that the city delayed hearing Millerís appeal, council acted properly and within the bounds of proper ethics.

<p>Elected officials must do all they can to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interests. Yet even applying these strict criteria, Hendersonville City Council acted correctly in voting last week to refund a water fee paid by a recently elected council member.</p><p>In a 3-1 vote with Councilman Jerry Smith opposing, council agreed Jan. 9 to refund Miller’s Laundry and Cleaners $10,875 in impact fees the business’ owner, Councilman Jeff Miller, paid to relocate part of his business in 2011.</p><p>Miller is open about the fact that his dispute with the city over the fees, known as system development charges, prompted him to run for council. His battle concerning these charges, which are imposed on new homes and businesses that impact the city’s water and sewer system, started about eight years ago.</p><p>At that time, Miller relocated a business in the Laurel Park Shopping Center to U.S. 64, incurring $12,000 in water fees, most of that attributed to system development charges. Miller contends he should not have had to pay the fees because he was relocating a business rather than opening a new one.</p><p>Five years later, Miller transferred his long-running laundry service for summer camps from Miller’s Laundry on King Street to 620 Brevard Road. Moving the service allowed him to upgrade equipment, cutting his company’s water use at both locations. Yet he was charged another $12,000 in September 2011, most of it attributed to the system development charge.</p><p>Miller was so aggravated by the total of $24,000 in water charges that he considered filing a lawsuit against the city. Instead, he filed a formal complaint with then-City Manager Bo Ferguson.</p><p>After taking the matter before council, Ferguson sent Miller an email advising him to wait about two years before bringing his request for a refund before the board. The reason given was to allow the city time to compare the difference in the laundry’s past and current water use.</p><p>Council approved a new rate formula in 2012 that caused the system development charge to spike for commercial water users. Miller said his business would have paid $25,000 rather than $12,000 under that system. But in October, council revised the policy to lessen the impact on businesses. Miller, however, was so frustrated that he made his battle the centerpiece of his winning bid for a seat on council in November.</p><p>Since city officials told Miller to wait two years before appealing the fee assessed on his business, it is not his fault that the decision came after he was elected to council.</p><p>Council also voted to waive the system development charge for Boyd Chevrolet in November after the company cut its water use by more than half at its new location, and council has previously refunded charges to a veterinary clinic.</p><p>There is no reason to believe council would have acted differently had Miller been anyone else but an elected council member. Because of this, and the fact that the city delayed hearing Miller’s appeal, council acted properly and within the bounds of proper ethics.</p>